So, I read all the e-mails on this -- thanks for interesting discussion.
Here are a few more comments from me:
1) I got an approval from SFW c-team to move pwgen from SFW to /contrib
*prior* submitting this PSARC case. So, I will go back again to the
c-team for and advice how to proceed / not proceed further -- there is
quite a lot feedback to bring up.
2) When pwgen was integrated to SFW it really was not a promotion from
/contrib.
3) Based on my experience with sustaining FOSS I believe that we need to
have many FOSS packages *for* Solaris rather than *as part of* Solaris.
A strategy around this should be discussed on some other e-mail thread
than this one.
Thanks,
Lukas
On 6/8/10 7:48 PM, Lukas Rovensky wrote:
Hi Suha & all,
I apologize but I am on vacation tomorrow (till end of this week). A
call would work for me sometime the next week.
I understand the concerns about some "bigger plans".
If I have time I will try to provide some more comments later today (err
night my time). However, the main point (at least for me) is as the
following -- anything in SFW is supported at some level. Utility like
pwgen does not require any real maintenance but if it is in /contrib
repository then the boundary between "supported" and "unsupported" is
set clearly. Anything in /contrib is "unsupported".
Thanks,
Lukas
On 6/8/10 7:38 PM, Suhasini Peddada wrote:
Hi Gary, Darren, Garrett, Bart and Lukas,
How about setting up an offline meeting to discuss the case?
As there is no PSARC meeting tomorrow, I guess we can use 10:00 AM
pacific
time slot.
Does it work for you?
Thanks,
-Suha
On 06/08/10 10:24 AM, Gary Winiger wrote:
On 06/08/10 09:57, Suhasini Peddada wrote:
Hi Garrett and Darren,
On 06/08/10 09:35 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 17:04 +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
On 08/06/2010 07:11, Suhasini Peddada wrote:
Hi Darren,
On 06/07/10 06:06 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
I agree with Bart I don't approve of the removal of this command.
Cleaning up SFW is fine but don't throw out useful good small
utilities that have very little (or near zero) maintenance.
-1.
Are you derailing the case?
No I'm suggesting the case be withdrawn and the removal not be done.
And if the case owners decline to withdraw?
We can suggest, but as I understand it, the only action we have
available to us formally as part of a fast track (besides +1'ing or
remaining silent) is to derail.
Really not a derail, just not approved and the project team
gets to choose how to proceed to get approval or withdraw.
The tool may be useful, but so are a great many others. Does it have
any tie-in(s) to other parts of the system?
Thanks for your input.
If the above question is related to technical tie-in(s) then I guess
Lukas
can clarify.
IMO, Garrett is asking about some bigger plans. For example,
getting rid of all of SFW would be a bigger plan. Identifying
parts of SFW that are not useful and removing them would be
a bigger plan. You get the idea ....
Gary..
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-arc mailing list
[email protected]
